Tag Archives: Police

As most of you know already, I am a Facebook user. Click Here to see my Facebook page. I also post on Twitter, Instagram and other things like, Linkedin and AVVO.com. Because of my strong Social Media presence, it’s not unusual for people ask me interesting legal questions.

One of my dearest friends posed a very general question on Facebook regarding driving barefooted in Massachusetts. He wanted to know whether or not it was legal to drive with no shoes or footwear, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Although I am primarily a bankruptcy and consumer defense attorney, I sometimes handle a few criminal and civil cases, including traffic citations. I told my friend that I would do a little quick research on this interesting general topic.

This is what I found…

I started with the Massachusetts laws, or statutes, regarding driving while impaired. As most of you already know, driving while impaired means a lot of things, but it doesn’t mean driving without shoes. Impaired driving has to do with defendants who ingest, smoke or take substances that “impair” their ability to drive. In other words, don’t drink and drive or don’t drive while intoxicated or when taking drugs or substances, whether or not those substances are legally permissible. If they cause you to drive unsafely, it’s illegal. Although driving barefooted may be fun, it’s probably not exactly intoxicating. Thereby, barefooted driving would not qualify as an offense or apply to the law, under the impaired driving statutes in Massachusetts. Arguably, if driving without shoes induces an impaired driving intoxication, then for the sake of argument, there may be some remote chance there is a legal situation or offense. I said remote. If this happened, such a strange situation would be handled by a judge on a case by case basis.

Moving right along…

There are a similar set of statues in Massachusetts called the distracted driving statutes. Distracting driving is similar to driving while impaired in that a driver can not allow certain things to interfere with safe driving, but these are different because they don’t involve substances that impair driving. Under the distracted driving statutes, all drivers who drive in Massachusetts are prohibited from doing things that prevent them from keeping their “eyes on the road,” such as text messaging and cell phone use, using technology and other devices. One part of this law, for example, is that all drivers under the age of 18 are prohibited from all cell phone use. These kinds of things are considered “distracted” driving but there is no mention of barefoot driving or driving without footwear.

For the sake of argument, if driving with no shoes is distracting to you and you can’t keep your eyes on the road, or perhaps the shoes or flip flops you just kicked off your feet are getting under your foot pedals, causing you to drive in an unsafe manner, this would be a matter that could be considered distracted driving. However, this sort of barefoot driving case would be a matter that should be settled by a judge or jury at court. I don’t suggest doing this. But for sake of this research, there is nothing per se, in Massachusetts, that would prohibit one from driving without shoes, according to the impaired or distracted driving statutory laws. But there are other laws pertaining to driving. Let’s take a look.

Taking a look at the new Safe Driving laws of Massachusetts, one can see that there are a lot of restrictions regarding mobile phones, devices and driving over the age of 75 and older. However, I found nothing in the safe driving laws of Massachusetts regarding barefoot driving. So there you have it! Let’s move on to regulatory law.

I began my quick regulatory law research by taking a look at the Massachusetts Driver’s manual. The Massachusetts Driver’s Manuel states, “In your vehicle, nothing should get in the way of your ability to see, react, or drive.” In other words, you can not have distracting objects in your vehicle, like wearing both head phones, a television visible to the driver or anything that could get in the way of your feet, and use of the vehicle pedals, while driving. Again, this sort of thing implies that it’s not permissible to simply kick off your shoes and let the shoes interfere with safe driving. However, the RMV manual mentions nothing about driving without shoes. So, RMV regulatory law isn’t a big help here, other than giving us a better idea of what it means to drive safely, not distracted and not intoxicated or under the influence of substances. Never the less, we still don’t really know whether or not there is anything in Massachusetts law that says it is not permissible to drive without shoes.

I ran a search on Mass.gov to see if I could find anything further in the regulations regarding driving barefoot. I found something interesting regarding footwear guidelines in the UK, but I found nothing for driving while barefoot in Massachusetts.

I also ran a case law search on my legal search engine. I found nothing regarding case law in Massachusetts. Since I could not find any recent case law regarding barefoot drivers in Massachusetts, it is safe to assume there is no law or precedent regarding barefoot driving in Massachusetts. Therefore, it is highly probable that it is legal to drive without shoes, with only socks or barefoot in Massachusetts, provided that driving without shoes is safe and does not distract one’s driving ability to drive safely.

Drive safely with naked tootsies or just socks in Massachusetts. Just be careful and be sure that your naked foot driving is free from intoxication, distraction and that kicking off your shoes never gets in the way of driving safe. Good luck!

If you have any comments or questions on this topic, or law in general, I invite you to post your comments, below. It’s interesting to see what others have to say.

If you have other legal questions, especially if you are contemplating bankruptcy or dealing with collections or debt collection law suits, Attorney Ginger Kelly is now accepting clients in the Dudley, Webster, Sturbridge, Fiskdale, Southbridge, Saundersdale, Oxford, North Oxford, Charlton, Charlton Depot, Auburn, Leicester, Rochdale, Spencer, Brookfield, East Brookfield, West Brookfield, North Brookfield, Warren, Brimfield, Wales, Palmer and Holland. We can explore whether or not bankruptcy is the easy way out for you. Our office is a quiet and comfortable place to talk, and a free pot of coffee will be waiting for you when you arrive.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

ABOUT ME: Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer debt, finance, bankruptcy and District Court matters. Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture. To find out more, visit our website, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE: This is an Advertisement. This post is not legal advice. Consult your attorney. Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet. Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other. We cannot stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney. Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice. Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.

Posting whatever you want on Facebook might not be a good idea, as in the case of Ebony Dickens of East Point Georgia.

Based on an April 30, 2015 report on CNN, Ebony Dickens, of East Point, Georgia, posted threats to the police under the name, Tiffany Milan, on social media. According to CNN, she posted this on Facebook, “I thought about shooting every white cop I see in the head until I’m either caught by the police or killed by them. Ha!!!! I think I can pull it off. Might kill at least 15 tomorrow, I’m plotting now.”

Soon after Ms. Dickens posted the threats, she deleted her Tiffany Milan Facebook account. She erased all her threatening posts. But that didn’t matter. Erasing the threats didn’t help. She already published them to others. By virtue of her Facebook posts, Ms. Dickens got arrested. She was arrested not only by the local authorities, but by homeland security. Apparently, Ms. Dickens “allegedly” violated local law, but State and Federal law. I say, “allegedly” because Ms. Dickens case is still pending. Even so, it’s important to look at US free speech law and why, oftentimes, comments made on Facebook aren’t protected speech.

Based on this story, making Facebook posts about shooting the cops using a fake name may not be a good idea. Protected and lawful speech, of any kind, does not involve making true threats, using fighting words to incite violence and cyber-bullying. Ranting on Facebook, or anywhere, may not always be a good idea, no matter appealing it may seem to be for some. First Amendment Freedom of Speech law is a not a get-out-of-jail free card for offenses like these. Freedom of Speech rights do not make one immune from arrest and jail. People can also file civil suits against others for making certain kinds of speech.

Under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, people can get arrested for speech involving obscenity, child pornography, misleading commercial speech, fighting words, cyber bullying and true threats. For example, free speech does not include (for no good reason) yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. This is a classic example. People get arrested and end up in jail for telling others, “I’m going to kill you.” Also, making up stories about others is not always harmless. For example, telling someone your friend has “Ebola,” or somethings similar, when in fact they do not, can get a person in a lot of legal trouble.

In the business world, free speech does not include making unsupported claims. When a commercial producer claims their product “builds strong bodies 12 ways,” or wants to show that their product is healthy, the producer and all the stakeholders better support this sort of claim with strong evidence. Commercial claims may be unprotected speech, provided there is no proof behind such claims.

Cartoons and political satire, like the Charlie Hebdo cartoon depicting the Islamic prophet Mohammed, is an example of a form of US free speech. Under US law, cartoonists and artists may publish political cartoons and politically charged satire. This is considered protected free speech. Under the laws of other countries, such cartoonist speech is not always protected. Whether or not political cartoons are always wise or prudent to publish remains controversial. Even so, there is no complete list of US constitutional freedom of speech examples that explain what does or does not constitute freedom of speech.

Concerning freedom of speech and the laws of free speech, each situation and every fact pattern is not the same. Each person and each legal case is different. This is why a professional legal analysis of every situation is important. This type of case-by-case basis legal examination is what legal professionals call, “fact-intensive” legal analysis. Fact intensive legal analysis is what lawyers and judges are trained to do. This is why it’s always important to consult your lawyer and be sure to ask them any legal questions regarding freedom of speech guarantees, the US Constitution or any law, before you act or draw conclusions about legal matters.

Under First Amendment free speech, free speech does not include true threats. However, treats made in humor or funny stories, like exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally, tends to be protected speech in certain circumstances. For example, Saturday Night Live, (“SNL”), a comedy show shown on TV on Saturday night, has made sketches mocking the blind and making racist jokes about people who go to Starbucks, (things like this). SNL made a fake video defaming Thailand. These were shocking and offensive to a lot of folks. SNL poked fun at real people. Comedians verbalized threats and violence.

Humor performed by professional comedians or published by professional cartoonists is considered protected speech. Jokes, cartoons, sketches and speech, shared by professional comedians and artists is part of what they do for good reasons. Professional comedians, cartoonists, artists and the like, create artistic and scientific works that benefit the public. Often, artistic work involves sarcastic comedy, political satire, parody and shocking artistic work that may involve certain forms of pornography. Legality of the free speech and the intent of that speech (which is one of many legal elements that must be shown) is quite often determined by the virtue of one’s profession.

The intent of an artist, by virtue of the artistic profession, is to add artistic value to most people and the general public, whether or not this is shocking to a few individuals. The intent of a comedian, by virtue of the comedic profession, is to entertain and invoke thought, discussion and to inject humor or satire into a skit or cartoon, not to cause specific harm to others. Many times, these forms of free speech are political in nature. Political figures and political issues are permissible targets of free speech. Not everyone or everything fits into this category. Every case is different.

Even on occasion, even comedians and artists get into legal trouble. For example, if an artist took an artistic work too far and people filed legal cases against them, this is perfectly legal if the claim is not frivolous. The Court will determine a frivolous case and have it dismissed, when necessary. Every case must be examined by the facts and the nature of the speech published, be it in writing, on any form of medium or orally (by word of mouth). Every case must look at the platform of delivery, the person publishing the speech and, in some cases, who the speech was intended for or the intended message and audience.

As you may have guessed, there is a lot look at when it comes to Free Speech rights and Constitutional laws regarding freedom of speech. Examples are only a snapshot. I can only give you a general snapshot of this topic. But remember, US First Amendment free speech is never a get-out-of-jail-free ticket that gives a person unconditional immunity from arrest, jail or a civil lawsuit. The story of Ebony Dickens is a perfect example. Posting threats to the cops on Facebook or anywhere, is one reason why quite often posting things on Facebook can land a person in court or worse, jail.

ABOUT ME: Attorney Kelly is an attorney in good standing, licensed to practice in both the Federal District and State Courts of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Her law practice is focused on consumer finance and bankruptcy. However, Attorney Kelly is experienced in both criminal and civil trial work. On a personal note, Attorney Kelly enjoys writing and other things, like conservation and agriculture. To find out more visit, www.attorneykelly.squarespace.com or http://www.attorneykelly.wordpress.com, or call us at (508) 784-1444.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTICE: Attorney Kelly does NOT provide legal advice to anyone via social media or anywhere over the Internet. Any and all electronic posts and writings, by Attorney Kelly, does NOT establish any type of attorney-client relationship, whatsoever, neither perceived, actual, material, implied or other. We can not stress enough, if you need personal legal advice, always see your attorney. Do not rely upon Attorney Kelly’s posts, writings or any Internet information on websites or social media for your own personal legal advice. Seek legal advice and representation from your own personal attorney.